"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).

here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son

This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.

Or definitely not.

Oh you

In either case, the issue is far more complicated than the age-old procedit-ekporeuomai word game

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Yes, but that is NOT what's going on here. Again, you show me some other Latin EVIDENCE that procedit will assume different meanings with each object of the same preposition "ex" and I'll reconsider my objection (not to the filioque theologically, but to your linguistic contortions). Until you can provide EVIDENCE in the Latin language that this has happened before, I will reject it.

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Seems like an awfully confusing way to write a Creed that is supposed to CLEAR UP confusion.

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Seems like an awfully confusing way to write a Creed that is supposed to CLEAR UP confusion.

What will be heard from RC pews this Sunday:

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life who proceeds from the Father and the Son based upon predication analogically and equivocally which I don't even pretend to understand even though it does refute the Orthodox who refuse to say the Creed the right way, who with the Father and the Son...

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Seems like an awfully confusing way to write a Creed that is supposed to CLEAR UP confusion.

Yes, why not simply use a different Latin word for the two realities under review (i.e., the Spirit's procession of origin and His progression through the Son)?

« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 01:23:54 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

But it need not be a song that never ends if people are willing to affirm the need to translate the Greek words that refer to the Spirit's origin and His manifestation into Latin in such a way that the variety of meaning is maintained. So perhaps the Greek term προϊέναι, which refers to the movement of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, could be translated into Latin using the word "processio", while simultaneously removing any causal meaning that has been ascribed to that Latin term in the past. Next the Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον, which concerns the Holy Spirit's procession of origin from the Father alone, could be translated by using the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word), and that word could be given a causal significance like that of the Greek word it translates, and that would in effect turn the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word) into a technical theological term meant to exclusively refer to the Father's eternal causing of the Spirit's person.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 02:10:21 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

If both sides accepted a solution along the lines I have proposed, it would be possible for the East and the West to confess together - with St. John Damascene - that we speak of ". . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him manifest (φανεροὑμενον) and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence (ὕπαρξιν) from the Son."

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

The Orthodox Church does fine reciting it in English and many other languages that are not Greek. I think encouraging the Latins to come to the truth is the better option in the long run, even if it takes forever.

This goes without saying but we have the truth already.

This topic has become a pissing contest..... Lets move on....nothings going to be settled here.

...could be translated by using the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word), and that word could be given a causal significance like that of the Greek word it translates, and that would in effect turn the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word) into a technical theological term meant to exclusively refer to the Father's eternal causing of the Spirit's person.

Egreditur has the same number of syllables as Filioque. Congratulations, you have saved the Western liturgical musical patrimony!

...could be translated by using the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word), and that word could be given a causal significance like that of the Greek word it translates, and that would in effect turn the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word) into a technical theological term meant to exclusively refer to the Father's eternal causing of the Spirit's person.

Egreditur has the same number of syllables as Filioque. Congratulations, you have saved the Western liturgical musical patrimony!

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

You keep bouncing around the issue without actually taking a stand.

No I took a stand. You just refuse to recognize it. Can't help you with that.

Quote

You say that Orthodox theology, related as it is to the Greek term, is correct, and that Latin theology, related as it is to the Latin term, is also correct.

Yes

Quote

But you also assert that the Greek term is interested in origins, while the Latin term is interested in motion.

Not just assert, but in fact IS THE CASE.

Quote

But when asked how the Latins were able to (mis)translate the Greek term so that it no longer means what the Greek means because it is no longer talking about the same concept, you want to say that the Latin term indicates both origin and motion.

It doesn't and I never said it did. Read further down.

Quote

when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

No the Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation

If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."

But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you

We'll stick to the Faith explained in the Creed by the Fathers in the original Greek.

An explanation of the explanation of the explanation etc. just gets you deeper into heresy. As the Vatican finds itself now after centuries of "explanation."

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby

A different spirit inspired Pastor Aeternus. Not the one proceeding from the Son, but the one trying to tempt Him in the wilderness. Unlike the Lord, your supreme pontiff fell for it.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 05:35:27 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.

Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.

Exactly. You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque). Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases. Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it. It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.

Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

Speaking as a languagist, it happens all the time in every language. You really don't have to argue with these people.

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Then, as St. Gregory Palamas points out, if such is the case, the Holy Spirit is God the Father's cosmic Grandchild. Either that or, we can follow St. Gregory the Theologian (4th c.), who points out that the Spirit is likened to Eve who was not born of Adam, but proceeded from him.

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.

No offense, just a clarification, so are a couple of my kids (Ph.D' s) but they couldn't offer an academically vetted opinion here as one is a scientist, the other a poet. You need to be a bit more specific if you're throwing degrees around for credibility sake.

Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist. I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related. If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist. I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related. If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

For me, Orthonorm's statements have a slight tendency to go in one ear and out the other, so to speak. (Or should I say eye?)

Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist. I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related. If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

I suspected as much and having your CV out and in the open in this discussion lends weight to your pov. Most of us are without any skill set to argue, let alone understand the nuances and/or clear meaning of ancient languages. Since that has become a focus of this thread, I'm glad to know that an Orthodox voice with the academic background to offer a cogent response in defense of the Orthodox understanding has weighed in, in defense of our Faith. Thanks.

Not sure what's so lowly about being a high school teacher. Of the many dozens (hundreds?) of books I've read by modern Orthodox authors, possibly the one I found most helpful was by a high school teacher (Panayiotis Nellas). But pardon me for taking things even further astray

Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist. I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related. If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

It clears matters up for me. I would have been happy to have you as a Latin teacher at the small Catholic high school where I worked as Vice Principal.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Then, as St. Gregory Palamas points out, if such is the case, the Holy Spirit is God the Father's cosmic Grandchild. Either that or, we can follow St. Gregory the Theologian (4th c.), who points out that the Spirit is likened to Eve who was not born of Adam, but proceeded from him.

That's silly. The Holy Spirit is neither begotten of the Father nor the Son. He proceeds from them.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Then, as St. Gregory Palamas points out, if such is the case, the Holy Spirit is God the Father's cosmic Grandchild. Either that or, we can follow St. Gregory the Theologian (4th c.), who points out that the Spirit is likened to Eve who was not born of Adam, but proceeded from him.

That's silly. The Holy Spirit is neither begotten of the Father nor the Son. He proceeds from them.

My thoughts exactly

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist. I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related. If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/